vvr
12-18 08:57 PM
Pls. send your feedback to letters@mercurynews.com.
I called them today and cancelled my subscription today after 3 yrs of continued subscription. It's very ironic of mercury news to publish a one sided article against immigrants given their subscriber base.
I called them today and cancelled my subscription today after 3 yrs of continued subscription. It's very ironic of mercury news to publish a one sided article against immigrants given their subscriber base.
ashwinicool67
04-29 10:44 AM
Thanks kaisersose.
Anyone else have any inputs. I need to make this decision soon and would appreciate as many inputs as possible.
Thanks.
Anyone else have any inputs. I need to make this decision soon and would appreciate as many inputs as possible.
Thanks.
gcnotfiledyet
06-23 03:49 PM
and how do you know that.. did Rush tell ya???
his statments during conference tell mya
his statments during conference tell mya
reddymjm
05-16 02:53 PM
Sent an email to 20 of my friends @ work to that and following up with them.
Some of my friends got the response saying that they are getting lot of calls and your name is added to MI phone list.
Some of my friends got the response saying that they are getting lot of calls and your name is added to MI phone list.
more...
hiralal
06-15 10:09 PM
I have a quick question though it is not related to family petition.
what happens in this case ...you have a EAD valid for 2 years, say till Sept 2011. few months from now, 485 is denied for whatever reason.
does the EAD become null and void or can you still use EAD till 2011 ? (I know we can file MTR etc).
In other words, I wanted to know, what happens to EAD if GC is denied (in final judgement).
Thanks
what happens in this case ...you have a EAD valid for 2 years, say till Sept 2011. few months from now, 485 is denied for whatever reason.
does the EAD become null and void or can you still use EAD till 2011 ? (I know we can file MTR etc).
In other words, I wanted to know, what happens to EAD if GC is denied (in final judgement).
Thanks
atul555
07-30 08:15 PM
It will progress all the way to 2002 Nov - Dec by Oct visa bulletin and keep progressing to 2003 or 2004 beginning by end of fiscal year 2010. The basis of this calculation is part visa number usage analysis, and part hope :) let's see how it pans out.
more...
pasupuleti
03-28 01:53 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, yesterday's bill which is passed does not have like this provisions.
Yes! Yesterday's bill does not have these provisions.
Yes! Yesterday's bill does not have these provisions.
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
more...
shimul99
09-25 03:37 PM
My wife is in h4 now and received the EAD. I also received it, everybody is saying if she uses her EAD her H4 will be invalid. Is that a good or bad thing? What about she lost her job after three months? what will be her status? also is we travel using the AP what will be her status? or it doesn't matter as long you have the EAD and AP......
am001
07-28 03:57 PM
Just wanted to let you all know I got my name change in the passport ( Indian Embessy NY)
thanks for all your help
Can you tell the entire process what you did. I have same case with my son's possport except we are in DC.
thanks for all your help
Can you tell the entire process what you did. I have same case with my son's possport except we are in DC.
more...
otovarm@hotmail.com
03-03 12:29 PM
Hi everyone, I am seeking some help:
-My wife's Labor Certification was approved on Oct-09-2006
-Priority Date: April-30-2001
We did stay on H1B (wife) and H4 (me) in the US for about 9 years total, we did extend the H1B year by year once the initial 6year period ended (labor was still pending). We left the US on Dec-27-2007 and have been outside the US since. Now we have our new 5year Turist Visa B1/B2.
1st Question:
Can we still apply for next steps towards the GC based on that approved labor cert, even though more than 2 years have passed since it was approved? (I believe next steps are I-140 and 485, right?
If answer is YES, can we go premium processing?
IMPORTANT: One of the partners in the company which filed the labor for her did die about 3 years ago. It seems like a new partner came in but still one of the original partners and the one who was my wife's boss when she was working for the company is still there. We are a little concerned because when we first approached the guy at the company about 2 years ago (when we got the LC approval notice) he told us that they had to restructure the company because of the other partner's death and they decided to change the company's name (slightly) and start all over again. At that time he told us that original company didn't have strong balance sheets, bank balances or tax docs to support the I-140 and that he wasn't sure if the new partner would agreed to sign the petition. He told us to wait 1-2 years and see if he could do it.
When we got that response we decided to leave the country (didn't have other option) and stay outside the country for at least a year to have the option to come again thru H1B with another company. (We also had twin boys - americans - and it has helped us to be in our home country while they were small babies).
Now we want to return to the US but we would like to know if we still have a chance to apply for the I-140 with that company. Anybody has any insights about this? Does it matter that the company changed its original name, even though the person who signed the LC petition would be the same person who signs the I-140 petition?
In the worst case scenario that this guy won't help us signing the I-140, can we apply thru another company under the original approved LC? I guess that if it is possible, then it should be thru a company under similar industry, or located in same region and Job description should match the one in the LC.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and any insights would be greatly appreciated.
-My wife's Labor Certification was approved on Oct-09-2006
-Priority Date: April-30-2001
We did stay on H1B (wife) and H4 (me) in the US for about 9 years total, we did extend the H1B year by year once the initial 6year period ended (labor was still pending). We left the US on Dec-27-2007 and have been outside the US since. Now we have our new 5year Turist Visa B1/B2.
1st Question:
Can we still apply for next steps towards the GC based on that approved labor cert, even though more than 2 years have passed since it was approved? (I believe next steps are I-140 and 485, right?
If answer is YES, can we go premium processing?
IMPORTANT: One of the partners in the company which filed the labor for her did die about 3 years ago. It seems like a new partner came in but still one of the original partners and the one who was my wife's boss when she was working for the company is still there. We are a little concerned because when we first approached the guy at the company about 2 years ago (when we got the LC approval notice) he told us that they had to restructure the company because of the other partner's death and they decided to change the company's name (slightly) and start all over again. At that time he told us that original company didn't have strong balance sheets, bank balances or tax docs to support the I-140 and that he wasn't sure if the new partner would agreed to sign the petition. He told us to wait 1-2 years and see if he could do it.
When we got that response we decided to leave the country (didn't have other option) and stay outside the country for at least a year to have the option to come again thru H1B with another company. (We also had twin boys - americans - and it has helped us to be in our home country while they were small babies).
Now we want to return to the US but we would like to know if we still have a chance to apply for the I-140 with that company. Anybody has any insights about this? Does it matter that the company changed its original name, even though the person who signed the LC petition would be the same person who signs the I-140 petition?
In the worst case scenario that this guy won't help us signing the I-140, can we apply thru another company under the original approved LC? I guess that if it is possible, then it should be thru a company under similar industry, or located in same region and Job description should match the one in the LC.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and any insights would be greatly appreciated.
VisaVisa
09-08 11:08 PM
Me and my wife are on pending I-485 AOS. Mine is employment based (EB3) and my wife's is derivative.
I-140 is approved.
I work here on EAD. My wife had to travel to India urgently. She applied for Advance Parole, but had to leave before she received the Advance Parole.
Now she wants to return back, but as she has not yet received Advance Parole, will she need to apply for Visa?
Or is it better to wait for Advance pArole decision?
If Visa, under what category?
Thanks
I-140 is approved.
I work here on EAD. My wife had to travel to India urgently. She applied for Advance Parole, but had to leave before she received the Advance Parole.
Now she wants to return back, but as she has not yet received Advance Parole, will she need to apply for Visa?
Or is it better to wait for Advance pArole decision?
If Visa, under what category?
Thanks
more...
pappu
04-10 02:21 PM
Active members are requested to urge others to update their profile details for the tracker. If you find someone's profile has fake details, please give them a red dot.
Admins go through users with most red dots occasionally
Admins go through users with most red dots occasionally
gc_kaavaali
05-21 02:22 PM
Below are the contents from that pdf document....does it means they will issue interim EAD after 90days??????.
Interim Employment Authorization Document
USCIS is required to adjudicate a pending Form I-765 within 90 days from the date of receipt. 8 CFR 274a.13(d). Failure to complete the adjudication within this time frame requires the Service to grant an employment authorization document for a period not to exceed 240 days. The following steps are being initiated to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the need for USCIS to issue an interim EAD.
Field Offices
Local Offices will no longer accept and adjudicate Form I-765 for an Interim EAD. The Service Centers or NBC will be responsible for adjudicating the pending I-765 and issuing interim or non-interim documentation. Upon receipt of Form I-765 requesting an interim EAD, local field offices are required to perform the following tasks.
� CLAIMS Verification
o Underlying application remains pending
o Determine if RFE has been issued, thus tolling
the 90-day adjudicative requirement o Form I-765 remains
unadjudicated
o Biometrics have been captured�if not, refer to ASC
� Contact NBC or Service Center to initiate EAD production�either Interim
or Non-Interim
� Provide Notice to applicant acknowledging status inquiry.
Check this memo: Elimination of Form I-688B (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ElimI688B_081806R.pdf)
Interim Employment Authorization Document
USCIS is required to adjudicate a pending Form I-765 within 90 days from the date of receipt. 8 CFR 274a.13(d). Failure to complete the adjudication within this time frame requires the Service to grant an employment authorization document for a period not to exceed 240 days. The following steps are being initiated to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the need for USCIS to issue an interim EAD.
Field Offices
Local Offices will no longer accept and adjudicate Form I-765 for an Interim EAD. The Service Centers or NBC will be responsible for adjudicating the pending I-765 and issuing interim or non-interim documentation. Upon receipt of Form I-765 requesting an interim EAD, local field offices are required to perform the following tasks.
� CLAIMS Verification
o Underlying application remains pending
o Determine if RFE has been issued, thus tolling
the 90-day adjudicative requirement o Form I-765 remains
unadjudicated
o Biometrics have been captured�if not, refer to ASC
� Contact NBC or Service Center to initiate EAD production�either Interim
or Non-Interim
� Provide Notice to applicant acknowledging status inquiry.
Check this memo: Elimination of Form I-688B (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ElimI688B_081806R.pdf)
more...
softwareguy
09-08 12:47 PM
Well, this is nothing new, in State Governments so many times they mandate that only companies that listed in that state have right to big contracts. What small women owned, disadvantages, veteran owned companies do is provide a front to big operators like Accenture, IBM. At times then the small company hires a Senior Manager and finally it becomes all IBM operation from India or Phillipines.
On other times the State mandates all work be done inside the State. Then you have H1 and L1 visa holders. This is business as usual.
Actually it is quite a decent engagement practice. State owned companies get a piece of the big cake and get a chance to learn from big players and state gets the quality work at a fairly decent rate. So it is all win-win. At times they mandate "In State" workers only - so that it helps the local economy... that is where the Infosys & Wipros might hurt a bit, as the cost to put guys in NYC versus Ohio from Bangalore is identical but billing rate advantage between NYC and Ohio is vastly different and they might have hire locally.
On other times the State mandates all work be done inside the State. Then you have H1 and L1 visa holders. This is business as usual.
Actually it is quite a decent engagement practice. State owned companies get a piece of the big cake and get a chance to learn from big players and state gets the quality work at a fairly decent rate. So it is all win-win. At times they mandate "In State" workers only - so that it helps the local economy... that is where the Infosys & Wipros might hurt a bit, as the cost to put guys in NYC versus Ohio from Bangalore is identical but billing rate advantage between NYC and Ohio is vastly different and they might have hire locally.
gcformeornot
06-06 06:55 PM
Job should be same or similar responsibilities and salary
salary is not requirement. It can not be less off course. It can be equal or more than LC.
Currently only 2 requirements
140 Approved and 485 pending more than 180 days.
Job should be same or similar title. Yes title only job duties do not matter.
This is per my lawyer.
salary is not requirement. It can not be less off course. It can be equal or more than LC.
Currently only 2 requirements
140 Approved and 485 pending more than 180 days.
Job should be same or similar title. Yes title only job duties do not matter.
This is per my lawyer.
more...
antihero
11-27 12:51 AM
I recently used the AP to enter the US. There were no issues in the US. However, the immigration official in India had some confusion trying to understand the AP. I had to show him a letter that my company's lawyer had given me listing the details of the AP and that I could use it for entering the US.
Hi Guru,
So did you have any other US visa in your passport, or were you carrying just AP document?
Hi Guru,
So did you have any other US visa in your passport, or were you carrying just AP document?
webm
02-14 09:28 AM
"If your RD for the 485 is later than that that means they didn't get to look at your file yet even though your PD is current."
I heard it is based on ND(Notice Date) not RD(ReceivedDate) of 485.
HTH,
I heard it is based on ND(Notice Date) not RD(ReceivedDate) of 485.
HTH,
snathan
01-22 08:25 PM
I was working for a Company A with whom I recently had my petition extended until this year Aug. Then I got laid off and then changed to Company B in Dec 09. But since then until now which is 6 weeks my current employer (his lawyer) has not filed my H1 to USCIS and going to do it shortly. But then Company A again want to rehire me now. One good thing is my Current I-797 petition is with Company A which is not revoked and is valid. But the bad news is they say I've been out of H1 Status since I left them in Dec and that would be a problem for them and for me to rehire me.
The Options Company A is giving me is to go out and get restamping done based on the current petition I have and agree/confess to Consulate that I was out of H1 status for 6 weeks and was under unauthorized employment (which I did not intent to break law as I only came to know a week back that my new employer has not filed the H1) and ask their forgiveness to come out clean. But under the current H1 weather I really don't want to risk going for restamping is one and revealing that I was out of status for 6 weeks which leave my chances of restamping slim.
So I'm really looking for an answer here from someone who either has went through my situation or someone with experience or a professional advice. Just let me know how can I join back Company A legally without going out of US to restamp?
Ask them to run the pay roll for those six weeks and pay the salary. Then you should be fine as your H1 is not yet revoked.
PS: Check with attorney.
The Options Company A is giving me is to go out and get restamping done based on the current petition I have and agree/confess to Consulate that I was out of H1 status for 6 weeks and was under unauthorized employment (which I did not intent to break law as I only came to know a week back that my new employer has not filed the H1) and ask their forgiveness to come out clean. But under the current H1 weather I really don't want to risk going for restamping is one and revealing that I was out of status for 6 weeks which leave my chances of restamping slim.
So I'm really looking for an answer here from someone who either has went through my situation or someone with experience or a professional advice. Just let me know how can I join back Company A legally without going out of US to restamp?
Ask them to run the pay roll for those six weeks and pay the salary. Then you should be fine as your H1 is not yet revoked.
PS: Check with attorney.
xu1
08-08 09:56 PM
...of meaningless "predictions."
:).. Just like I tune to Bloomberg radio everyday, listening to all those economists, money managers, bond traders pondering how every other month the Fed makes its move on the interest rate... I'm sick and tired of them predicting what's about to happen must happen by the rule of economics. But I tune in nonetheless every day when I drive to work.:D
It's probably fun, and meaningless.
:).. Just like I tune to Bloomberg radio everyday, listening to all those economists, money managers, bond traders pondering how every other month the Fed makes its move on the interest rate... I'm sick and tired of them predicting what's about to happen must happen by the rule of economics. But I tune in nonetheless every day when I drive to work.:D
It's probably fun, and meaningless.
joshraj
10-04 12:28 PM
Congrats :)